Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.98 seconds)
Documents citing R.K. Nabachandra Singh vs Manipur Administration on 1 August, 1963

Darshansingh vs The State Of Rajasthan on 26 April, 1978

7. Reliance was placed on Nabachandra v. Manipur Administration A.I.R. 1964 Manipur 39, wherein it is held that twenty-four hours prescribed under Section 61 of the Cr.P.C. is the outer most limit beyond which a per ion cannot be detained in police custody. It is certainly not an authorisation for the police to detain the accused for twenty-four hours in their custody It is only in a case where a police officer considers that the investigation can be completed within the period of twenty-four hours fixed by Section 61 that such detention for twenty-four hours is permitted.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Ningthemcha Ongbi Shakhenbi Devi vs State Of Manipur And Ors. on 31 January, 2006

13. From the report dated 15-2-1999 made by the respondent No. 6 which has been quoted in entirety it is clear that late R.K. Laksana was arrested by the respondents 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 and was taken to their custody. Meaning of "custody" had been discussed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court (D/B) after considering the case of Nabachandra v. Manipur Administration AIR 1964 Manipur 39 : 1964 (2) Cri LJ 307 in Mrs. Iqbal Kaur Kwatra v. Director General of Police, Rajasthan State, Jaipur 1996 Cri LJ 2600 and held that "It is well settled that 'police custody' does not necessarily mean custody after formal arrest. It also includes 'some form of police surveillance and restriction on the movements of the person concerned by the police'. The word 'custody' does not necessarily meant detention or confinement. A person is in custody as soon as he comes into the hands of a police officer."
Gauhati High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 2 - T N Singh - Full Document

K. Gajendra Naidu vs State Of A.P. Represented By Inspector ... on 22 July, 1992

Sections 438 and 439 and they run one afer the other. Both the provisions, namely Sections 438 and 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, are designed to secure a valuable right viz., right to personal freedom and involve the application of salutary presumption deep- rooted in criminal jurisiprudence that a person is innocent as long as he is proved to be otherwise. Departure from the established convention and practice in the absence of any specific restraints or fetters intended by the Legislature would be inviting the risk of foreclosure of a second application for grant of anticipatory bail being unmindful of the fact that life throws up unforeseen possibilities and offers new challenges apart from the fact that circumstances may undergo a change and the investigation may reveal little or no criminal liability. The only decision we could come across as regards the maintainability of successive applications for grant of ordinary bail is the one rendered by a single Judge of the Manipur High Court in Nabachandra v. Manipur Administration, AIR 1964 Manipur 39. In that case the police failed to send any report on the first bail application and therefore a second bail application was moved on a later date. The Sessions Judge felt that the Magistrate ought not to have entertained the second bail application, when the first one was not disposed of. The Sessions Judge was held to be wrong, by the learned single Judge, in thinking that there should be any such formality of the first application for bail being disposed of for purposes of entertaining the second application. So observing the Manipur High Court held:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shrawan Waman Nade And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra on 17 June, 1993

8. The learned advocate for the applicants cited, 1964 (2) Cri LJ 307 : (AIR 1964 Manipur 39), R. K. Nabachandra Singh v. Manipur Administration. It dealt with Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Same provision is to be found in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as Section 167 (with some modifications). It is observed - (at page 312 (of Cri LJ) "...... if the police do not transmit to the Court a copy of the entries in the diary relating to the case, to satisfy the Magistrate that there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well-founded, and that a remand is absolutely necessary for the purpose of investigation, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to direct the detention of the arrested person."
Bombay High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Mrs. Sudha Shivarame Gowda vs State Of Karnataka on 3 December, 1992

Lastly, learned counsel placed reliance on a decision of R. K. Nabachandra Singh v. Manipur Administration reported in 1964 (2) Cri LJ 307 : (AIR 1964 Manipur 39). In that case, it has been held that if the police do not transmit to Court, a copy of the case diary relating to the case to satisfy the Magistrate that there are grounds for believing that the accusation is well-founded and remand is necessary, the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to direct arrest of the accused and it is the duty of the police to comply with the provisions of S. 167(1), Cr.P.C. and the Magistrate should insist on such strict compliance and if the police do not satisfy the Magistrate that the document is not necessary the Magistrate may release the accused. It is not possible to agree with the proposition laid down in the case that the Magistrate may release the accused under S. 167(1), Cr.P.C. in the absence of the production of copies of the case diary.
Karnataka High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

State And Others vs E. Veeramani on 19 October, 1994

13. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that prosecution was given ample opportunity to place before court all relevant materials about the background of accused at the time of consideration of his bail application. Once accused is released on bail, the order granting bail cannot be cancelled on the ground of his past criminal record. Nabachndra v. Manipur Administration, AIR 1964 Manipur 39 : (1964 (2) Cri LJ 307 relied on by learned counsel for the respondent, has held that vague allegations as to his prior involvement in criminal cases that he was a man of desperate character and that he was likely to indulge in further commission of offence are not sufficient to cancel the bail.
Madras High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Ishwar Singh vs Panney Singh And Ors. on 1 September, 1983

5. Mr. L.D. Gaur, learned Counsel for non-petitioner No. 1, on the other hand, contended that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge was legal proper and reasonable in the circumstances of the case. According to his submission, Mr. S.K. Ghosh S.I. who arrested the non-petitioners, was duty bound to forward the non petitioners after 24 hours of their arrest to the nearest Judicial Magistrate along with a copy of the entries in the diary relating to the case Under Sub-section (1) of Section 167, Cr. P.C. but Shri S.K. Ghosh failed to transmit to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary relating to the case and so the learned Sessions Judge committed no error in holding that the detention of the non-petitioners was illegal and the remand order was unsustainable in the eye of law. To substantiate his contention, Mr. Gaur relied upon R.K Nabchandra Singh v. Manipur Administration AIR 1964 Manipur 39.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next